DOE Report Critical of MPS Program
The improvement plan being implemented in four large Milwaukee high schools has been given a bad report card by the arm of the U.S. Department of Education that evaluates what works and what doesn’t in school reform.
The program, First Things First, “was found to have no discernible effects on (students) staying in schools in its first year of implementation,” the What Works Clearinghouse said.
Leaders of the organization behind First Things First criticized the federal report, saying the authors based their conclusion on too few schools that had used the program too brief a time, and ignored results that were more meaningful and more favorable.
... if once - just one - MPS would look at a report that is critical of something in MPS, take it to heart, and make meaningful changes instead of just poo-pooing the report.
Well, for one thing, the report was not actually about MPS.
For another thing, the report was about one aspect of the first year of a multi-year, multi-pronged reform—in one district out of dozens where it is being implemented.
For a third thing, the J-S headline writers long ago gave up reading the freakin’ articles, apparently; it’s also apparent you didn’t bother to read past the lede.
Posted by folkbum on February 18, 2008 at 0908 hrs
Boy, you got me there. It’s not about MPS. It’s about a program being implemented in MPS. Whew… big distinction.
Posted by Owen on February 18, 2008 at 0936 hrs
Even that is not accurate, Owen. It’s about the partial results of a program as it was implemented in Houston.
Posted by folkbum on February 18, 2008 at 1014 hrs
Folkbum…huh? Pulaski, Bradley Tech and James Madison are in Houston? The quote including ‘...no discernible effects in its 1st year were about Pulaski HS. Stick with arguments that work and… are accurate. One full year from one school is not enough info. Any sort of turnaround would be miraculous in that short amount of time. Any ‘report card’ on a 1st year program is premature to make judgements from. It was not irresponsible to evaluate it after one year, though either, just to make judgements from.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2008 at 1108 hrs
TUERQAS, this is from the article:
The federal researchers said four studies on First Things First that they reviewed did not meet their standards for use in judging the program, but a fifth study, focusing on dropout rates at three schools in Houston in the first year of the program, did. It showed no difference in the rate at schools using the program.
That’s what the fed report was based on—schools in Houston. No one has yet done a study of First Things First in Milwaukee. I know; I teach in one of those schools.
If you want, you can look at the 2006-2007 report cards for Tech (.pdf) and Pulaski (.pdf), but even then the data would not be very useful, as the test scores were from students who had been in the reform for only six weeks, and there are no drop-out statistics available yet.
Look, things are not all sunshine and lollipops at the First Things First schools in Milwaukee. But they are not any worse than any of the other schools right now, and the FTF schools are at least trying some different stuff.
Posted by folkbum on February 18, 2008 at 1130 hrs
I see. It doesn’t read that way in the article, but if that is the accurate interpretation, I believe you. It first states “... no discernible… in its 1st year” in paragraph 2 followed by Pulaski is the only program to have completed one year. The Houston statement does not come until much later so JS (it seems) purposely misleads you in the beginning by titling it about MPS schools and not the program nationwide.
This does not seem to me to be another ‘new math’ project and I hope it works. After working so hard to take the family out of education, it is interesting (good) to see educators turning back to those principles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2008 at 1143 hrs
The Houston statement does not come until much later so JS (it seems) purposely misleads you in the beginning by titling it about MPS schools and not the program nationwide.
I think it’s just poorly written. I get it that the article is talking about a review of a program that was implemented in Milwaukee, without actually reviewing the Milwaukee implementation of that program. It took a second read over the opening paragraph to get that.
Also, I get that from Owen’s entry, so I don’t know why folkbum is being so critical with it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2008 at 1149 hrs
No folkbum was correct there, most of the post is a quote, Owen’s comments were purely about MPS not taking responsibility for ‘failure’. Folkbum was merely saying in essence that in this case they have a right to ‘poo-poo’ the report as it really is premature. The Houston results do reflect on the program whether it was Pulaski HS or GW Bush HS in Houston, the program works or it doesn’t. It is just too soon judge, if you won’t take in the more long term Kansas results.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2008 at 1213 hrs
Moreover, Owen faults MPS officials for “poo-poo"ing the report when no one from MPS said word one about the report.
Posted by folkbum on February 18, 2008 at 1227 hrs
From the story:
Milwaukee Public Schools officials and representatives of the program say they are encouraged by how things are developing at each of the schools, and they remain committed to the approach.
Emphasis mine.
By “remaining committed to the approach” despite the report means that they are disregarding it completely. Maybe they are right to do so in this case. But it would be nice to hear something like, “we will consider the report while continuing to evaluate this program.”
Posted by Owen on February 18, 2008 at 1240 hrs
From my experience at WBW HS they went from a 21 20 minute ‘mod’ system to an 8 hour day over 4 years. They kept changing the same group and people below them as they went because (I believe) they wanted to keep the outcry to a minimum. I was a Freshman in the old system so I was one grade above the ones that got screwed. They kept giving us perks like no study hall so that while the grade below me had mandatory study halls, I never had one. i.e the people that didn’t have study hall their first year never had it while one grade below me had study hall every year. The same would hold for a program like this. It is hard to change an entire approach to a set of students already familiar with the old approach. Hopefully, (folkbum, I would like to know) they began this new system with just the Freshman class. Regardless, I would not expect any accurate results, especially about dropout rates, until the freshman that began this experiment graduate. In 4 years I would love to know whether this system is helping.
If you remember any of my comments Owen, you know I am very hard on schools especially in the areas of union, benefits, new trendy curricula, the taking over of parenting, and lack of merit pay scales, but I think this is one MPS refutation of criticism that is accurate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2008 at 1316 hrs
This is just one more example of how Owen is ideologically opposed to public education. Even when he was faced with facts that he could not refute, provided by Folkbum, he was looking for a way to criticize MPS and in general public education. People who read this blog need to know that Owen is an ideologue and will not make even the most modest attempt at balance. Thanks to Folkbum for pointing this out better than I could have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 18, 2008 at 1548 hrs
...says the person commenting from the Friess Lake School District.
Last I checked, I have never made the assertion that I am unbiased.
Posted by Owen on February 18, 2008 at 1727 hrs
Anon might not think Owen is balanced, in the clear way that Hillary and Obama are well balanced. However, if Owen was not biased towards the current balance, most of us wouldn’t bother reading here - the mainstream media would provide us with the other “balance.” I disregard Owen claiming to be biased as being conciliatory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2008 at 0137 hrs
Nicely said Hawkman.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2008 at 1108 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 123
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 07:16 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).